Privacy

I read a post from a classmate’s blog titled “Privacy? A Thing of the future?”  I didn’t know that law enforcement agents could just view anyone’s personal emails with only a subpoena. These standards have been in effect since 1986! I agree with Glen, our rights have been taken away bit by bit and the fact that such a law is being passed just seems like a step in the right direction. It might make investigations longer but if there is a reason for them to read one’s email I’m sure any judge would let law enforcement officers view the emails.

Fiscal Cliff

With the fiscal life almost upon us, the American public waits while both parties duke it out and try to get their policies put through so much so that they are currently at a stalemate. The main cause of the stalemate is whether or not the Bush tax cuts will expire and taxes will raise for the wealthy (those that make $200,000 if single and $250,000 if married). I think that the Democrats have to hold firm on that issue and let it expire (no negotiation). Those tax cuts were created with hopes that the wealthy would spend the money they saved and promote an increase in the economy, but they didn’t so why continue to give them more tax breaks?  That isn’t all that needs to be done in these fiscal talks, like Rep. Steve LaTourette said we all “need to focus more on the cost of programs like Medicare and Social Security. We need to fix the models they created in the 1950’s and crack down on health care fraud (last year alone, the government’s health care fraud prevention and enforcement recovered nearly $4.1 billion in tax payer money).  Both sides need to come together and work as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans.

I wish I could give more information on the Republican stance on the issue, but their main focus is on the prevention of ending tax cuts for the upper class, decrease spending on programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and the increase in the debt ceiling. I for one don’t believe that decreasing funding to SS and Medicare will fix the problem; I think they just need to look at the programs and reevaluate them completely.  Democrats proposed an increase in the debt ceiling and $50 billion dollars for a stimulus program. I don’t know why they would want an increase on the debt ceiling, because the main goal of these fiscal talks is to decrease the debt so in my opinion I don’t understand these demands.

All in all, I think the two parties need to work together and solve the debt issue if not, we will all see a tax hike of $2,200 each. With that said, I still believe that taxes for the upper class need to increase.

Works cited

http://bonds.about.com/od/Issues-in-the-News/a/What-Is-The-Fiscal-Cliff.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-boehner-fiscal-cliff-taxes-20121129,0,4107018.story

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/could-outgoing-republicans-hold-keys-to-fiscal-cliff/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/30/fiscal-cliff-both-sides-harden-positions-next-steps-unclear/

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-ag-213.html

Abortions

The article I chose to comment on was Natasha Atmadja’s article titled Don’t Abort. In the article she states that abortion or the pro-choice view on the topic is all about killing children “if a woman didn’t want to deal with a ‘mistake baby’ or felt that children would be too much of a hassle.” While I know that there are some women who get abortions because of these reasons, I don’t think all women should be denied the right to have an abortion if they feel it is what they need. However, I think if women don’t want kids they should take preventative measures or put the kids up for adoption. In addition, I believe it is morally wrong to force a woman to have a child if the child is a product of rape. This is a topic that isn’t black and white, there are so many different sides and facets to this topic.

"The House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health" - Congressman Henry Waxman

Since 2001, environmentally conscious legislations started becoming less popular. The Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Clean Water Act (among other acts created to protect the environment) have been increasingly weakened, mostly by House Republicans. According to Chairman John Mica “The Obama Administration and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are pushing a dramatic expansion of federal jurisdiction over waters and wet areas in the United States… Broadening the scope of the Clean Water Act and the federal government's reach into our everyday lives would adversely affect the nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and expand the federal government’s authority over state, local and private property rights.” I beg to disagree, having clean drinking water, being able to go kayaking, swimming in the lake, and fishing those are all things we hope to be able to do, those are all rights we deserve as humans. Claiming that those rights threaten jobs is a sorry excuse for weakening such helpful legislations.

During the summer of 1969, a fires broke out on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio. The river was filled with industrial pollution and oily waste. Earlier in 1952, the river caught fire and cost the city of Cleveland $1.5 million (it would equal $13,098,509.43 today). There were plenty of cases like this, there were also instances where people fell ill due to drinking contaminated water and in one occasion 26 million fish died from contamination in one lake. Between 60 and 70 percent of the water in and around the US was deemed unsafe for fishing, unsafe for swimming, and most of all unsafe for drinking. After seeing how badly things were going environmentally, both parties rallied together and created the Clean Water Act (an add-on to the Federal Water Pollution Act of 1948) and the Environmental Protection Agency. Their hopes were that the EPA would clean up the water, and create guidelines and regulations that would make “a clean and safe environment a reality.”

The Act and the EPA have accomplished many feats since their creation. It has created the structure for regulating pollutants discharges in the waters of the US, made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutants into water without a permit; it has also cleared waterways and made public drinking water cleaner. While great, there are still problems that the EPA and CWA face at the moment.  Rivers and lakes still get contaminated through stormwater runoff which is a mixture of rain, oil, and toxic chemicals that seep into our water sources. The EPA hasn’t been granted the ability to combat such pollution and it seems like it won’t be able to for a while. Since the 112^th Congress the House of Representatives have voted 191 times to weaken the CWA claiming the act will cause the EPA to become too powerful and will take away the power from the states. Congressman Waxman said it best “the House Republican’s assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless… the Republican anti- environment agenda is completely out of touch with what the American public wants.” One can’t simply ignore the fact that better jobs, cleaner jobs will be created if only the EPA could expand. These are people who are trying to make the world a better place for everyone not just a few money hungry companies that would trample on the rights of everyone because of money.

                                                    Works Cited

"40 Years of Achievement, 1970-2010." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/40th/achieve.html>.

"Background: Restoring Clean Water Act Protections | Clean Water Action." Background: Restoring Clean Water Act Protections | Clean Water Action. Clean Water Action, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. <http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature/background-restoring-clean-water-act-protections>.

"Clean Water Act (CWA)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 27 June 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lcwa.html>.

Mica, John L. "Preventing Clean Water Act Expansion." Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2012. <http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/singlepages.aspx/807>.

"New Report Details "The Most Anti-Environment House in the History of Congress"" Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats. N.p., 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 03 Nov. 2012. <http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/new-report-details-the-most-anti-environment-house-in-the-history-of-congress>.
 "Clean Water Act Still Essential." POLITICO. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2012. <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82590_Page2.html>.

Clean Water Act

While every news station is repeating the over played debate clips or gushing over Honeybooboo, the butchery of the Clean Water Act is going on largely unbeknownst to the public. Peter Lehner, wrote on this issue in the Opinions section of Politico. In this article he attempts to inform the public of how Republicans in the House of Representatives and some in Congress want to throw out key provisions of the Clean Water Act. He starts off by showing the reader the effects of the Act, the fact that the tap water we drink is safe, the beach and the surrounding waters in which we swim in are safe, and we are still able to go fishing.  Before the law was passed in 1972, rivers caught fire, millions of fish died due to contamination, and raw sewerage was constantly dumped into rivers and lakes.  He claims that at the time “between 60 and 70 percent of America’s lakes, rivers, and coastal water were considered unsafe for fishing and swimming in 1972.

The basic argument is: not only do we have to protect the Clean Water Act, we have to go beyond what it originally states and augment it to deal with new issues involving the cleanliness of our water such as the hazardous effects of polluted storm water contaminating our rivers and lakes. He also argues that the EPA, not the House of Representatives or the Senate should oversee the Act; the EPA should go beyond preserving the cleanliness of the water and promote green infrastructure.

When I read the article I was touched by the fact that someone took it upon themselves to. That was until I read that Lehner is the executive director of the Nation Resources Defense Council, it kind of took me aback and made me think “well this changes things” could he have some hidden agenda other than to inform the public about this atrocity? I don’t know, but the fact of the matter is, this article brought light to something that affects millions of people and if the Act gets weakened it could have detrimental effects on our lives. I looked for an article that supported or criticized the article and I found a brief history on the Act on PBS which seems to strengthen the legitimacy of the article. I am convinced that we need to do something to ensure that the CWA remains intact, I just can't understand why states would want to trade the health of their inhabitants for money. Drinkable water is running out and they want to pollute the little we have left.

The Dilemma With Undecided Voters

After months of campaigning, the presidential candidates finally faced off on Wednesday during the first of the many debates that aspire to sway the few Americans who are still undecided. This article is intended for those undecided voters, Timothy Egan, a Pacific Northwest correspondent and a national enterprise reporter who has written for the New York Times for 18 years, starts out by stating that “time is up” for the undecided voter. There aren't many, but the fact that the media and the presidential candidates are focusing so much on swaying them to no avail is what seems to be the matter here.  He claims that there is no viable reason for them not to come to a conclusion yet, the candidates couldn't be more different! In his mind, either you side with Mitt Romney (who wants to cut taxes, add to the defense budget and somehow reduce the debt) or Barack Obama (who lowered the unemployment rate and plans to get rid of the policies that put us in this economic state).   The choice is evidently easy but he claims that it’s not that they can’t make up their minds, it’s that they won’t.

The argument appears to be clear: we hate you because you won’t make up your mind; yet beneath that there seems to be a pro Obama message here. While he rips Romney’s ideals he does nothing but praise Obama, it leads one to wonder whether Romney is that bad and Obama that good or whether the author is staying true to the New York Time’s liberal point of view.

Despite the bias, Egan’s argument is successful; it isn't based on his gut or on rumor but actual facts. I looked for the Washington Post poll which he claimed that undecided voters were the least interested in the debates, and saw that a whooping sixty eight percent of undecided voters won’t be watching the debates. After reading this article, I have learned that vast majority of the persuadable voters refuse to watch the one thing that is designed to persuade them and that is a problem, it’s not that they can’t pick a side it’s that they don’t want to. This argument made me understand the purpose of the debates and a bit about how the political world works during the race to the White House. If the undecided voters voted it could affect who wins the popular vote.

Mitt Romney FINALLY Releases His Tax Info

Politico wrote an interesting article about how Mitt Romney could still stand to receive criticism over his taxes. 

After receiving criticism from not only the democrats but voters alike Mitt Romney finally released information on two decades worth of tax returns and his 2011 tax return. His 2011 tax return shows that he opted not to claim the more than $1.75 million in deductions for charitable donations because he “made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be over 13%”. However he has been quoted saying, “if I paid more than legally due, I don’t think I would be president,” I just think there was no way for him to come out on top in that situation. The article shows that despite his attempt to silence his critics, his actions have raised more questions and criticisms than he anticipated. Some of the questions raised were why he didn’t release the tax information for each and every one of the years instead of an average of all the taxes he has paid? The article also shows how the average amount of taxes he paid (20.2%) could actually be incorrect. I just think that if he as a presidential candidate isn't open with the public it gives us reason not to trust him, or vote for him.